Farmers in developing countries are already feeling the effects of climate change. What is needed to help them cope is an almost unprecedented shift of resources from north to south, says Anne Perkins
The gap between rhetoric and reality, the developed and developing worlds, is cruelly illustrated by the huge promises and meagre results of successive global gatherings on providing funds to help less developed countries adapt to the changing climate.
On Tuesday, Farm-Africa, one of the Guardian's partners in the Katine project, helped launch Climate Frontline, a collection of African voices reflecting on how their climate has already changed, and how they are adapting to it. It is full of practical ideas – new ways of making liquid compost from animal droppings, or growing maize in pits where moisture is better retained, to name just two.
But unless Copenhagen sets in train a colossal effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions, many African communities are going to have to do much more than get smart about soil improvement. Reforestation and irrigation, improved seeds, technology and education are all part of the answer to saving the continent's agricultural potential.
At the Climate Frontline launch at Westminster, Farm-Africa's chief executive, Christie Peacock, warned that despite the experience of generations of farmers in adapting to harsh conditions, "the pace of change is stepping up", while the reaction of the major polluters remained "depressingly poor".
Another speaker, Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), warned that the loss of viable agricultural land could lead to mounting insecurity and the massive relocation of whole peoples, possibly across borders.
The failure of the rainy season is already bringing instability back to some parts of the Teso region of north-east Uganda, in which Katine is found. East of Katine, the Karamojong – whose region is even worse affected – have returned to cattle rustling to replace stock they have lost to drought.
Sub-Saharan Africa is only one of four global regions that will feel the impact of climate change most severely. Island states, coastal areas and the great Asian river deltas are all likely to experience devastating loss of land.
That is why, as long ago as 2001, the protocol agreed at Kyoto included a plan for an adaptation fund. The best feature about it was that it was to be funded by a levy on "clean development mechanism project activities" - that is, it was to depend on funding on the rate at which developed countries reduce their emissions. It was to have an independent source of income rather than relying on vulnerable national pledges of donations.
Sadly, it has taken until now to agree the governance and rules under which it would operate. And although they are hailed as a triumph for a new way of doing business, with developing countries having a majority on the board and the final say on the disbursement of funds, it is still waiting for a steady revenue stream.
Meanwhile other funds have proliferated. The Overseas Development Institute sponsors a site that lists dozens of them from the UN, the World Bank, the EU and some individual countries. As the Guardian reported last month, there is one common feature of the multilateral funds, like the UN's special climate change fund and its less developed countries' fund, and others like the World Bank's loan-based strategic climate fund: the money pledged by individual countries has not been delivered.
Yet the predicted cost of adaptation and mitigation is rising steeply. As the IIED reported in August, it is now estimated at something approaching $150bn a year.
In the likely absence of any deal on targets for emissions reductions at Copenhagen next month, all attention is going to focus on finding a way of guaranteeing that there are reliable, predictable, additional and equitable funds available to the countries that pollute the least and will suffer the effects of global warming the most.
What is needed is an almost unprecedented shift of resources from north to south. It is going to take something like a revolution to get it.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Kiwi Carbon Cramdown
There is no 'good' way to do emissions controls.
New Zealand's government is crowing about the amended cap-and-trade bill passed Wednesday as a "balanced" and "responsible" solution to fight global warming. That is, if pork barreling and ramming a bill through parliament without any serious economic study of its impact is what's considered "responsible."
Prime Minister John Key's National Party-led government ran on a campaign promise to amend the previous government's onerous cap-and-trade law, which was rushed through before the last election. Mr. Key promised to water down the scheme to protect the economy from severe harm, while fulfilling New Zealand's Kyoto Protocol commitments.
The Key government soon found that its coalition partners, the ACT Party and the Maori Party, had serious reservations about passing what turned out to be the world's most comprehensive cap-and-trade bill. No wonder they were alarmed: National's bill covered all greenhouse gases and would affect most of the economy, including the country's key export industries of agriculture and forestry.
Critics also questioned the usefulness and timing of the bill, pointing out that New Zealand only contributes 0.2% of total global emissions, and a Copenhagen deal next month looks unlikely. Add in the climate-gate scandal bubbling in Britain, where evidence surfaced that climatologists tried to suppress skeptical global-warming studies, and there's even more reason to delay.
Yet the nominally conservative Key government plowed ahead by buying off the Maori Party earlier this week. In return for votes, the Maoris will get "energy efficiency assistance" for 8,000 low-income homes, the right to plant trees on government land to offset emissions elsewhere, and other goodies. The Nationals then rushed the bill through parliament under the "urgency" tool, used to extend sitting hours for priority business. The bill still only passed by a hair, 63-58.
Pork barreling to get a bill passed is nothing new in politics. But in this case it is only part of a bad picture: The government still has not released its own comprehensive study of the new law's potential economic impact. Kiwis may soon demand one as their energy prices rise and foreign investment goes elsewhere—all in the name of being "responsible."
New Zealand's government is crowing about the amended cap-and-trade bill passed Wednesday as a "balanced" and "responsible" solution to fight global warming. That is, if pork barreling and ramming a bill through parliament without any serious economic study of its impact is what's considered "responsible."
Prime Minister John Key's National Party-led government ran on a campaign promise to amend the previous government's onerous cap-and-trade law, which was rushed through before the last election. Mr. Key promised to water down the scheme to protect the economy from severe harm, while fulfilling New Zealand's Kyoto Protocol commitments.
The Key government soon found that its coalition partners, the ACT Party and the Maori Party, had serious reservations about passing what turned out to be the world's most comprehensive cap-and-trade bill. No wonder they were alarmed: National's bill covered all greenhouse gases and would affect most of the economy, including the country's key export industries of agriculture and forestry.
Critics also questioned the usefulness and timing of the bill, pointing out that New Zealand only contributes 0.2% of total global emissions, and a Copenhagen deal next month looks unlikely. Add in the climate-gate scandal bubbling in Britain, where evidence surfaced that climatologists tried to suppress skeptical global-warming studies, and there's even more reason to delay.
Yet the nominally conservative Key government plowed ahead by buying off the Maori Party earlier this week. In return for votes, the Maoris will get "energy efficiency assistance" for 8,000 low-income homes, the right to plant trees on government land to offset emissions elsewhere, and other goodies. The Nationals then rushed the bill through parliament under the "urgency" tool, used to extend sitting hours for priority business. The bill still only passed by a hair, 63-58.
Pork barreling to get a bill passed is nothing new in politics. But in this case it is only part of a bad picture: The government still has not released its own comprehensive study of the new law's potential economic impact. Kiwis may soon demand one as their energy prices rise and foreign investment goes elsewhere—all in the name of being "responsible."
CO2 curve ticks upward as key climate talks loom
AP foreign, Friday November 27 2009
JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer= MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY, Hawaii (AP)
The readings at this 2-mile-high station show a troubling upward curve as the world counts down to crucial climate talks: Global warming gases are building in the atmosphere at record levels from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
One leading atmospheric scientist, Stephen Schneider, sees "coin-flip odds for serious outcomes for our planet."
Far from this mid-Pacific government observatory, negotiators from 192 nations gather in wintry Copenhagen, Denmark, next month to try to agree on steps to head off the worst of the climate disruptions researchers say will result if concentrations hit around 450 parts per million — in 30 years at the current rate. Some say the world has already passed a danger point, at 350 ppm, and must roll back.
Today's emissions curve is tracking the worst case among seven emissions scenarios set out in 2001 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), British climatologists reported in September.
The U.N. expert group projects that such a path would raise global temperatures between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 and 11.5 degrees F) by century's end. That would come on top of a global temperature increase of about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) in the past century, a warming trend the authoritative IPCC says is mainly due to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Such warming will shift climate patterns, cause more extreme weather events, spread drought and floods to new areas, kill off plant and animal species, and cause seas to rise from heat expansion and the melting of land ice, the IPCC says.
"Changing several degrees may not seem like much, but we're just changing things too fast," Barnes said. "So the consequences could well be drastic."
The IPCC has urged industrialized countries to reduce global emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. As of 2007, they stood only 4 percent below 1990 levels, and the rest of the world continued pouring out more and more heat-trapping gases, chiefly from the burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels.
Through this decade global emissions have grown by 23 percent. In 2008, almost three-quarters of the increase came from China, researchers reported last week. Other big contributors among developing countries were India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia, Iran and Mexico.
Experts see no sign of a slowdown.
It would "probably be at 390 (ppm) next year at Mauna Loa," said Fred T. Mackenzie, a professor emeritus of oceanography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. That would represent almost a 40-percent increase in carbon-dioxide density in the atmosphere since before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels.
Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist, said the world faces a huge risk.
"I think meters of sea-level rise are virtually inevitable, unless we can stop this. But I'm not such an optimist," he told journalists on a fellowship program with the Honolulu-based East-West Center. "The main message is we're in risk management. We do not know the science well enough to know exactly what the temperature is at when a tipping point will occur."
This U.S. government observatory, 11,141 feet up Mauna Loa's northern flank, also measures methane and other significant greenhouse gases. It was here on Hawaii's Big Island that climatologist Charles David Keeling pioneered the measurement of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, installing his experimental manometer on the gently sloping volcano in 1958.
He chose the site, already a U.S. Weather Service station, because the trade winds blowing over it had some of the cleanest air on the planet. Barnes said the CO2 measurements here, thousands of miles from major industry, were the first to show that manmade carbon dioxide emissions were accumulating throughout the global atmosphere.
The upward trend, averaging 1.9 parts per million per year in the past decade, undergoes seasonal fluctuations. In summer, during the growing season, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But in winter, the concentration of C02 rises as vegetation and other biomass decompose.
The observatory is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's worldwide network for measuring greenhouse gases. It coordinates measurements with other U.S.-run research stations in Alaska, California, American Samoa and the South Pole. Japan and Australia also run such networks.
The Mauna Loa researchers extend their measurements through their "flask network" — containers sent to dozens of places around the world each week or carried on commercial ships so people can fill them with air and send them back to be measured for C02 and other gases.
Barnes, watching the carbon dioxide "ppm" curve track ever upward on Mauna Loa, while some other greenhouse gases decline, noted that long-lived CO2 is "more and more the bigger player."
"It is going into the ocean, and there's some plant uptake, but a whole lot of it just goes into the air and it's going to stay there for thousands of years," he said.
---
On the Net:
NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory: http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/
JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer= MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY, Hawaii (AP)
The readings at this 2-mile-high station show a troubling upward curve as the world counts down to crucial climate talks: Global warming gases are building in the atmosphere at record levels from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
One leading atmospheric scientist, Stephen Schneider, sees "coin-flip odds for serious outcomes for our planet."
Far from this mid-Pacific government observatory, negotiators from 192 nations gather in wintry Copenhagen, Denmark, next month to try to agree on steps to head off the worst of the climate disruptions researchers say will result if concentrations hit around 450 parts per million — in 30 years at the current rate. Some say the world has already passed a danger point, at 350 ppm, and must roll back.
Today's emissions curve is tracking the worst case among seven emissions scenarios set out in 2001 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), British climatologists reported in September.
The U.N. expert group projects that such a path would raise global temperatures between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 and 11.5 degrees F) by century's end. That would come on top of a global temperature increase of about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) in the past century, a warming trend the authoritative IPCC says is mainly due to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Such warming will shift climate patterns, cause more extreme weather events, spread drought and floods to new areas, kill off plant and animal species, and cause seas to rise from heat expansion and the melting of land ice, the IPCC says.
"Changing several degrees may not seem like much, but we're just changing things too fast," Barnes said. "So the consequences could well be drastic."
The IPCC has urged industrialized countries to reduce global emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. As of 2007, they stood only 4 percent below 1990 levels, and the rest of the world continued pouring out more and more heat-trapping gases, chiefly from the burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels.
Through this decade global emissions have grown by 23 percent. In 2008, almost three-quarters of the increase came from China, researchers reported last week. Other big contributors among developing countries were India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia, Iran and Mexico.
Experts see no sign of a slowdown.
It would "probably be at 390 (ppm) next year at Mauna Loa," said Fred T. Mackenzie, a professor emeritus of oceanography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. That would represent almost a 40-percent increase in carbon-dioxide density in the atmosphere since before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels.
Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist, said the world faces a huge risk.
"I think meters of sea-level rise are virtually inevitable, unless we can stop this. But I'm not such an optimist," he told journalists on a fellowship program with the Honolulu-based East-West Center. "The main message is we're in risk management. We do not know the science well enough to know exactly what the temperature is at when a tipping point will occur."
This U.S. government observatory, 11,141 feet up Mauna Loa's northern flank, also measures methane and other significant greenhouse gases. It was here on Hawaii's Big Island that climatologist Charles David Keeling pioneered the measurement of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, installing his experimental manometer on the gently sloping volcano in 1958.
He chose the site, already a U.S. Weather Service station, because the trade winds blowing over it had some of the cleanest air on the planet. Barnes said the CO2 measurements here, thousands of miles from major industry, were the first to show that manmade carbon dioxide emissions were accumulating throughout the global atmosphere.
The upward trend, averaging 1.9 parts per million per year in the past decade, undergoes seasonal fluctuations. In summer, during the growing season, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But in winter, the concentration of C02 rises as vegetation and other biomass decompose.
The observatory is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's worldwide network for measuring greenhouse gases. It coordinates measurements with other U.S.-run research stations in Alaska, California, American Samoa and the South Pole. Japan and Australia also run such networks.
The Mauna Loa researchers extend their measurements through their "flask network" — containers sent to dozens of places around the world each week or carried on commercial ships so people can fill them with air and send them back to be measured for C02 and other gases.
Barnes, watching the carbon dioxide "ppm" curve track ever upward on Mauna Loa, while some other greenhouse gases decline, noted that long-lived CO2 is "more and more the bigger player."
"It is going into the ocean, and there's some plant uptake, but a whole lot of it just goes into the air and it's going to stay there for thousands of years," he said.
---
On the Net:
NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory: http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/
What do the US and China's emissions targets actually mean?
The momentum towards Copenhagen is gaining but how do emissions reduction offers from the EU, US and China compare?
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 November 2009 15.57 GMT
So we finally have the long-awaited emissions reduction offers from the US and China: a 17% reduction from 2005 levels from the US and a 40-45% reduction in "the carbon intensity of the economy" by 2020 from China. The momentum towards the UN climate talks in Copenhagen seems to be gaining by the hour and these developments must be welcomed.
The EU's initial offer of a 20% cut on 1990 levels over the same time period – finalised last month – is the third important part of the jigsaw. These three country blocks account for around 60% of global emissions so what they do is incredibly important. But what do these targets really mean?
China's impressive-sounding target to reduce its carbon intensity refers to cutting the CO2 that is emitted per yuan of economic activity. But because economic forecasts already predict that China's economy will become less carbon intensive in the next decade, the country's pledge actually only amounts to a cut of between zero and 12% off business as usual emissions in 2020 (depending on what version of the future you choose to compare it with). That is roughly a 40% increase in CO2 emissions on current levels.
The US's number, as environmentalists, frustrated by the lost decade under President Bush, are keen to point out, amounts to only a 4% cut in emissions compared with 1990 levels.
But Europe is also playing the same game. The 1990 baseline for its targets flatters the EU massively because it allows it to count the emissions reductions that occurred in the 1990s due to the collapse of Soviet economies that are now part of the club. The combination of this unearned reduction, with a handful of one-off reductions in industrial gases in a few countries, delivered Europe its Kyoto target ahead of schedule. And it is now set to achieve more than a 10% reduction by the end of this decade – helped along by the current recession. Compared with 2005 emissions the current 20% target is only a 13% reduction by 2020.
So what is the best basis to judge whether countries are committing to a comparable effort? The main obstacle to reaching global agreement is countries' concerns about their economic competitiveness. And clearly what impacts this most is the level of effort that needs to be expended to reduce emissions between now and the target deadline. So arguably the most sensible metric is to compare targets against most recent levels.
Recast against a 2007 baseline the US and EU numbers look like this: Europe – minus 11.7%; US – minus 17.3%.
Over a number of years, the EU has claimed to be leading the world in reducing emissions. It has introduced a range of policies to try to curb emissions but these have been slow to start and dedicated climate and energy policies have delivered few savings to date. This is evident not only in the emissions record so far but also from the continued unbroken link between emissions and economic growth or decline. Investment in energy infrastructure also appears not to have deviated significantly from "business as usual", with many more coal-fired power stations being proposed in Europe. Cap and trade regulation has been implemented on 50% of emissions, however, they have been set too leniently leading too surpluses in emissions permits and low prices.
More investment is now being made into renewable electricity but this is still too insignificant on its own to achieve a significant reduction in all energy-related emissions. The harder tasks of reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations and industrial plant and decarbonising our transport and heating systems has yet to begin in earnest. As a result, emissions in recent years, the effect of the recent recession aside, have been more or less static.
But the good news is that Europe does at least have some momentum and a policy head start over countries like the US. But only tougher targets will provide the impetus for serious policy change and investment on the ground. That is why the targets announced over the last two days by the US and China are welcome because the EU should now be forced to move to its higher conditional target of at least a 30% cut on 1990 levels (meaning a 22% cut on 2007).
Even if Europe does this, the collective effort now on the table still falls well short of the latest scientific recommendations that global emissions should peak and decline by 2015 to avoid a less than 50/50 chance of going above 2C warming. Negotiators in Copenhagen must therefore try to ratchet up all the numbers currently on the table. Failing that it is imperative that these numbers for 2020 are reviewed following the publication of the next scientific assessment due in 2014. By then, the world will be well on the way to developing clean energy technologies, and it should be possible for much more ambitious targets to be agreed.
Capturing countries' current ambitions now in a legally binding framework, even if they are low, is politically important but we should not see this as the final word. A decade is a long time and we must plan to increase our efforts as soon as possible.
• Bryony Worthington is director of Sandbag. To help make sense of the numbers Sandbag has developed a quick and easy online target convertor.
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 November 2009 15.57 GMT
So we finally have the long-awaited emissions reduction offers from the US and China: a 17% reduction from 2005 levels from the US and a 40-45% reduction in "the carbon intensity of the economy" by 2020 from China. The momentum towards the UN climate talks in Copenhagen seems to be gaining by the hour and these developments must be welcomed.
The EU's initial offer of a 20% cut on 1990 levels over the same time period – finalised last month – is the third important part of the jigsaw. These three country blocks account for around 60% of global emissions so what they do is incredibly important. But what do these targets really mean?
China's impressive-sounding target to reduce its carbon intensity refers to cutting the CO2 that is emitted per yuan of economic activity. But because economic forecasts already predict that China's economy will become less carbon intensive in the next decade, the country's pledge actually only amounts to a cut of between zero and 12% off business as usual emissions in 2020 (depending on what version of the future you choose to compare it with). That is roughly a 40% increase in CO2 emissions on current levels.
The US's number, as environmentalists, frustrated by the lost decade under President Bush, are keen to point out, amounts to only a 4% cut in emissions compared with 1990 levels.
But Europe is also playing the same game. The 1990 baseline for its targets flatters the EU massively because it allows it to count the emissions reductions that occurred in the 1990s due to the collapse of Soviet economies that are now part of the club. The combination of this unearned reduction, with a handful of one-off reductions in industrial gases in a few countries, delivered Europe its Kyoto target ahead of schedule. And it is now set to achieve more than a 10% reduction by the end of this decade – helped along by the current recession. Compared with 2005 emissions the current 20% target is only a 13% reduction by 2020.
So what is the best basis to judge whether countries are committing to a comparable effort? The main obstacle to reaching global agreement is countries' concerns about their economic competitiveness. And clearly what impacts this most is the level of effort that needs to be expended to reduce emissions between now and the target deadline. So arguably the most sensible metric is to compare targets against most recent levels.
Recast against a 2007 baseline the US and EU numbers look like this: Europe – minus 11.7%; US – minus 17.3%.
Over a number of years, the EU has claimed to be leading the world in reducing emissions. It has introduced a range of policies to try to curb emissions but these have been slow to start and dedicated climate and energy policies have delivered few savings to date. This is evident not only in the emissions record so far but also from the continued unbroken link between emissions and economic growth or decline. Investment in energy infrastructure also appears not to have deviated significantly from "business as usual", with many more coal-fired power stations being proposed in Europe. Cap and trade regulation has been implemented on 50% of emissions, however, they have been set too leniently leading too surpluses in emissions permits and low prices.
More investment is now being made into renewable electricity but this is still too insignificant on its own to achieve a significant reduction in all energy-related emissions. The harder tasks of reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations and industrial plant and decarbonising our transport and heating systems has yet to begin in earnest. As a result, emissions in recent years, the effect of the recent recession aside, have been more or less static.
But the good news is that Europe does at least have some momentum and a policy head start over countries like the US. But only tougher targets will provide the impetus for serious policy change and investment on the ground. That is why the targets announced over the last two days by the US and China are welcome because the EU should now be forced to move to its higher conditional target of at least a 30% cut on 1990 levels (meaning a 22% cut on 2007).
Even if Europe does this, the collective effort now on the table still falls well short of the latest scientific recommendations that global emissions should peak and decline by 2015 to avoid a less than 50/50 chance of going above 2C warming. Negotiators in Copenhagen must therefore try to ratchet up all the numbers currently on the table. Failing that it is imperative that these numbers for 2020 are reviewed following the publication of the next scientific assessment due in 2014. By then, the world will be well on the way to developing clean energy technologies, and it should be possible for much more ambitious targets to be agreed.
Capturing countries' current ambitions now in a legally binding framework, even if they are low, is politically important but we should not see this as the final word. A decade is a long time and we must plan to increase our efforts as soon as possible.
• Bryony Worthington is director of Sandbag. To help make sense of the numbers Sandbag has developed a quick and easy online target convertor.
China Offers Specific Carbon Targets
By SHAI OSTER
BEIJING -- China unveiled targets to slow its carbon emissions and said Premier Wen Jiabao would attend the global climate-change summit in Copenhagen next month, a day after Washington laid out concrete U.S. emission targets for the first time and announced that President Barack Obama would join the meeting.
But China's widely expected offer falls short of a cap on emissions. The Chinese State Council, or cabinet, said Thursday that China would aim to cut carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product -- by a range of 40% to 45% by 2020.
One of the world's most polluted countries, China has increasingly stressed its commitment to changing its dirty ways ahead of a December 7-18 climate change summit in Copenhagen.
The move would be a "binding goal" incorporated into the country's mid- and long-term development plans, the cabinet said.
China and the U.S. are the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases and have wrangled for years over who should shoulder more of the burden of cutting emissions.
At Copenhagen, Mr. Obama intends to propose that the U.S. cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83% by 2050. It marks the first time the Obama administration has formally offered specific commitments.
The Chinese targets will add to the momentum to achieve some kind of agreement at the Copenhagen summit. But because they are only a pledge to cut relative levels of emissions -- not a promise to cap or cut back total greenhouse gasses from current levels -- some observers feel they won't be enough to get more than a political commitment from the meeting instead of a binding international treaty.
Still, the Chinese move is significant, representing the first time that China has spelled out its goals for slowing carbon emissions.
The United Nation's top climate negotiator, Yvo de Boer, said in a statement he welcomes both the U.S. and the Chinese moves. "The U.S. commitment to specific, midterm emission-cut targets and China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement," he said.
"This is a significant announcement at a very important point in time. But China could do more," said Ailun Yang of Greenpeace China. "Given the urgency and magnitude of the climate-change crisis, China needs stronger measures to tackle climate change." Ms. Yang added that "if they had announced 45% to 50% then we could say they were ambitious."
The WWF also welcomed China's announcement. "A 40% to 45% reduction in China's carbon intensity from business-as-usual projections is far from trivial," said Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF's global climate initiative.
China's top climate envoy said the Chinese targets were a domestic voluntary action rather than an international one. But "Chinese people stick to their word," Xie Zhenhua, deputy head of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, the former state planning agency, told a news conference.
Mr. Xie said that China now expects "real action" by the West on funding and technical support before the Copenhagen meeting. So far, such support had failed to materialize, he said.
China has proposed that developed nations contribute 1% of gross domestic product to subsidize efforts by poorer nations to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. That translates to more than $140 billion for the U.S. alone. U.S. officials have dismissed the Chinese proposal as "untethered from reality."
Some observers say the low end of the new Chinese target is just an extension of energy policies already in place. China has a goal of cutting its energy intensity -- measured as energy used per unit of GDP -- by 20% to 2010 from 2006, a goal that Mr. Xie said is achievable. China's energy-efficiency goals are also motivated by energy security concerns. But burning less coal -- the source of 80% of China's electricity -- means less carbon is released into the air.
Even a 40% drop could be hard to reach because many of the easy gains have already been achieved, warns Zou Ji, the China representative of the World Resources Institute. "The future is harder, the potential gains will become smaller and smaller," Mr. Zou said.
In addition, measuring carbon intensity poses a huge statistical and scientific challenge for China. For example, it is hard to determine how much carbon is absorbed by increasing China's forest coverage to create carbon sinks.
"My feeling is that even if we set up this goal, it will not be easy to reach," Mr. Zou said. "We will need to do very hard work. I'm not so optimistic we can reach that. But we can try."
A Chinese foreign ministry statement said Mr. Wen would attend the Copenhagen meetings, which run from Dec. 7 to 18. Mr. Obama will show up on Dec. 9.
Write to Shai Oster at shai.oster@wsj.com
BEIJING -- China unveiled targets to slow its carbon emissions and said Premier Wen Jiabao would attend the global climate-change summit in Copenhagen next month, a day after Washington laid out concrete U.S. emission targets for the first time and announced that President Barack Obama would join the meeting.
But China's widely expected offer falls short of a cap on emissions. The Chinese State Council, or cabinet, said Thursday that China would aim to cut carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product -- by a range of 40% to 45% by 2020.
One of the world's most polluted countries, China has increasingly stressed its commitment to changing its dirty ways ahead of a December 7-18 climate change summit in Copenhagen.
The move would be a "binding goal" incorporated into the country's mid- and long-term development plans, the cabinet said.
China and the U.S. are the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases and have wrangled for years over who should shoulder more of the burden of cutting emissions.
At Copenhagen, Mr. Obama intends to propose that the U.S. cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83% by 2050. It marks the first time the Obama administration has formally offered specific commitments.
The Chinese targets will add to the momentum to achieve some kind of agreement at the Copenhagen summit. But because they are only a pledge to cut relative levels of emissions -- not a promise to cap or cut back total greenhouse gasses from current levels -- some observers feel they won't be enough to get more than a political commitment from the meeting instead of a binding international treaty.
Still, the Chinese move is significant, representing the first time that China has spelled out its goals for slowing carbon emissions.
The United Nation's top climate negotiator, Yvo de Boer, said in a statement he welcomes both the U.S. and the Chinese moves. "The U.S. commitment to specific, midterm emission-cut targets and China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement," he said.
"This is a significant announcement at a very important point in time. But China could do more," said Ailun Yang of Greenpeace China. "Given the urgency and magnitude of the climate-change crisis, China needs stronger measures to tackle climate change." Ms. Yang added that "if they had announced 45% to 50% then we could say they were ambitious."
The WWF also welcomed China's announcement. "A 40% to 45% reduction in China's carbon intensity from business-as-usual projections is far from trivial," said Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF's global climate initiative.
China's top climate envoy said the Chinese targets were a domestic voluntary action rather than an international one. But "Chinese people stick to their word," Xie Zhenhua, deputy head of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, the former state planning agency, told a news conference.
Mr. Xie said that China now expects "real action" by the West on funding and technical support before the Copenhagen meeting. So far, such support had failed to materialize, he said.
China has proposed that developed nations contribute 1% of gross domestic product to subsidize efforts by poorer nations to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. That translates to more than $140 billion for the U.S. alone. U.S. officials have dismissed the Chinese proposal as "untethered from reality."
Some observers say the low end of the new Chinese target is just an extension of energy policies already in place. China has a goal of cutting its energy intensity -- measured as energy used per unit of GDP -- by 20% to 2010 from 2006, a goal that Mr. Xie said is achievable. China's energy-efficiency goals are also motivated by energy security concerns. But burning less coal -- the source of 80% of China's electricity -- means less carbon is released into the air.
Even a 40% drop could be hard to reach because many of the easy gains have already been achieved, warns Zou Ji, the China representative of the World Resources Institute. "The future is harder, the potential gains will become smaller and smaller," Mr. Zou said.
In addition, measuring carbon intensity poses a huge statistical and scientific challenge for China. For example, it is hard to determine how much carbon is absorbed by increasing China's forest coverage to create carbon sinks.
"My feeling is that even if we set up this goal, it will not be easy to reach," Mr. Zou said. "We will need to do very hard work. I'm not so optimistic we can reach that. But we can try."
A Chinese foreign ministry statement said Mr. Wen would attend the Copenhagen meetings, which run from Dec. 7 to 18. Mr. Obama will show up on Dec. 9.
Write to Shai Oster at shai.oster@wsj.com
French Economic Nationalism Lives On
By MATTHEW CURTIN
True to form, economic nationalism may be about to trump industrial logic in France. Nuclear engineering company Areva, 93%-owned by the French state, looks set to sell its transmission and distribution business to Alstom and Schneider Electric despite their inferior offer, according to a person familiar with the situation. Paris is fully prepared for the inevitable criticism. But rival bidders Toshiba and General Electric stood little chance.
Alstom and Schneider have been outbid by Toshiba, which is offering €4.2 billion ($6.36 billion) compared with roughly €4 billion from the French and third bidder General Electric. The two French companies propose a riskier future for the transmission and distribution business. They want to split the company's high-voltage and medium-voltage activities, arguing that will create more value than integrating the business as a whole, the plan at Toshiba and GE. Unlike Alstom and Schneider, the business's main rivals, ABB and Siemens, also are integrated-equipment suppliers. But old distinctions between transmission and distribution are blurring as customers focus on integrated approaches to energy efficiency, from the power station to the digital smart meter at the point of consumption. By some estimates integrated contracts account for 30% of the market.
Toshiba and GE bent over backward to accommodate French political concerns. They offered to list the transmission and distribution business in Paris and keep the headquarters in France, making it look little different from most CAC-40 companies, majority-owned by foreign shareholders. That hasn't satisfied Paris, which never expected foreign bidders to trump the domestic offer in an auction. The government's chief worry was that it would be tough to get a decent price for the transmission and distribution business to repair Areva's balance sheet. The recession has knocked back demand for power equipment. Instead, the Toshiba and GE bids have underscored how transmission and distribution is a sweet spot in the infrastructure market.
Of course, there still is time for the French government to change its mind. But Paris has shown before it has a thick skin when it comes to international criticism of its nationalist industrial policy. Toshiba and GE likely are to learn the hard way what should have been clear from the start.
Write to Matthew Curtin at matthew.curtin@dowjones.com
True to form, economic nationalism may be about to trump industrial logic in France. Nuclear engineering company Areva, 93%-owned by the French state, looks set to sell its transmission and distribution business to Alstom and Schneider Electric despite their inferior offer, according to a person familiar with the situation. Paris is fully prepared for the inevitable criticism. But rival bidders Toshiba and General Electric stood little chance.
Alstom and Schneider have been outbid by Toshiba, which is offering €4.2 billion ($6.36 billion) compared with roughly €4 billion from the French and third bidder General Electric. The two French companies propose a riskier future for the transmission and distribution business. They want to split the company's high-voltage and medium-voltage activities, arguing that will create more value than integrating the business as a whole, the plan at Toshiba and GE. Unlike Alstom and Schneider, the business's main rivals, ABB and Siemens, also are integrated-equipment suppliers. But old distinctions between transmission and distribution are blurring as customers focus on integrated approaches to energy efficiency, from the power station to the digital smart meter at the point of consumption. By some estimates integrated contracts account for 30% of the market.
Toshiba and GE bent over backward to accommodate French political concerns. They offered to list the transmission and distribution business in Paris and keep the headquarters in France, making it look little different from most CAC-40 companies, majority-owned by foreign shareholders. That hasn't satisfied Paris, which never expected foreign bidders to trump the domestic offer in an auction. The government's chief worry was that it would be tough to get a decent price for the transmission and distribution business to repair Areva's balance sheet. The recession has knocked back demand for power equipment. Instead, the Toshiba and GE bids have underscored how transmission and distribution is a sweet spot in the infrastructure market.
Of course, there still is time for the French government to change its mind. But Paris has shown before it has a thick skin when it comes to international criticism of its nationalist industrial policy. Toshiba and GE likely are to learn the hard way what should have been clear from the start.
Write to Matthew Curtin at matthew.curtin@dowjones.com
Funding for all-electric cars future
Cities compete for Government money to improve infrastructure for charging electric car.
By David Williams Published: 6:30AM GMT 26 Nov 2009
On-street charging points for electric and hybrid cars should increase
Towns and cities are being invited to compete for £30 million of Government funding to put into charging points for electric and hybrid vehicles.
Transport secretary Andrew Adonis announced the scheme to help with the installation of plug-in points on streets, car parks and at commercial, retail and leisure facilities.
The initiative – Plugged-In Places – will support the development of between three and six electric car cities and regions across the UK which will act as trailblazers for electric car technology. The experiences of these locations will help shape the future development of a national charging infrastructure.
The Government says it is investing around £400 million to encourage the development, manufacture and use of next-generation ultra-low carbon vehicles. Delivered by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, the programme is aimed at creating new jobs in a low-carbon automotive sector and at cutting carbon from UK road transport.
"The UK can be a world leader in electric and low carbon cars which is why the Government has already committed about £400 million of support to encourage development and uptake of ultra low-emission vehicles," said Mr Adonis. "Our aim is for electric and low carbon cars to be an everyday feature of life on UK roads in less than five years. There is still a lot of work to be done, however Plugged-In Places is one very significant step putting us firmly on the path to a low carbon future."
Successful applicants will have to match the Government's investment. Under a separate scheme, the Government recently announced seven schemes to benefit from £500,000 of funding through the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Grant Programme, providing 72 electric charging points and four gas refuelling stations in areas across England.
By David Williams Published: 6:30AM GMT 26 Nov 2009
On-street charging points for electric and hybrid cars should increase
Towns and cities are being invited to compete for £30 million of Government funding to put into charging points for electric and hybrid vehicles.
Transport secretary Andrew Adonis announced the scheme to help with the installation of plug-in points on streets, car parks and at commercial, retail and leisure facilities.
The initiative – Plugged-In Places – will support the development of between three and six electric car cities and regions across the UK which will act as trailblazers for electric car technology. The experiences of these locations will help shape the future development of a national charging infrastructure.
The Government says it is investing around £400 million to encourage the development, manufacture and use of next-generation ultra-low carbon vehicles. Delivered by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, the programme is aimed at creating new jobs in a low-carbon automotive sector and at cutting carbon from UK road transport.
"The UK can be a world leader in electric and low carbon cars which is why the Government has already committed about £400 million of support to encourage development and uptake of ultra low-emission vehicles," said Mr Adonis. "Our aim is for electric and low carbon cars to be an everyday feature of life on UK roads in less than five years. There is still a lot of work to be done, however Plugged-In Places is one very significant step putting us firmly on the path to a low carbon future."
Successful applicants will have to match the Government's investment. Under a separate scheme, the Government recently announced seven schemes to benefit from £500,000 of funding through the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Grant Programme, providing 72 electric charging points and four gas refuelling stations in areas across England.
Q+A-China-Europe seek to bolster ties at summit
Reuters, Friday November 27 2009
By Chris Buckley
BEIJING, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Currency tensions and climate change will feature in talks over the weekend and on Monday between Chinese and European Union leaders in Nanjing, capital of east China's Jiangsu province. Here are some questions and answers about the summit and the state of EU-China relations.
WHO'S MEETING WHOM?
The EU will be chiefly represented by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency. On Monday, they will meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
Before the summit, central bank and financial officials from each side will meet over the weekend in Nanjing. European Central Bank Governor Jean-Claude Trichet is due to hold talks with Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED?
Both sides have said the topics in focus are the global economy, climate change and strengthening ties. But China and the EU will bring different priorities to the table.
(1) The economy and trade. For Brussels, the priorities will be pressing China on currency and trade. China has been holding its yuan currency virtually pegged to the dollar even as the dollar has weakened against other key currencies. That has meant the yuan has dropped 15 percent against the euro since March.
That angers Europe, which has been trying to narrow its big trade deficit with China. In 2008, the EU imported Chinese-made goods worth 247.6 billion euros and exported to China goods worth 78.4 billion euros.
European officials also believe a stronger yuan is essential to global rebalancing efforts as the United States consumes less. Without it, they fear that the euro zone will bear most of the burden of a weaker dollar.
China has its own worries about EU anti-dumping actions aimed at its exports, steps Beijing has decried as protectionism.
(2) Climate change. The summit takes place just over a week before negotiations open in Copenhagen on a new international pact to fight climate change.
The EU and China will be key players in those negotiations, and the summit is a last chance to assess and test positions.
On Thursday, China announced goals to cut carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to make each unit of economic value -- by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 compared with levels in 2005. But it also said those were purely domestic commitments and would not be part of any internationally binding commitment.
(3) Market economy status and an EU arms embargo. China may press the EU to recognise it as a "market economy", and end an embargo on arms sales imposed after the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Beijing.
Granting "market economy status" would limit some anti-dumping and other trade protection measures taken by Brussels against Chinese goods.
WHAT WILL THE MEETINGS ACHIEVE?
The summit is unlikely to produce substantive agreements on any of these issues. It will give leaders from both sides an opportunity to set priorities as the EU seeks to lift its diplomatic profile after the Lisbon treaty reforms.
As for Europe's plea for a stronger yuan, the issue that will garner the most interest from global financial markets, leading euro zone officials have said they expect no immediate results from the talks.
HOW GOOD ARE CHINA-EU RELATIONS?
China and the European Union have been seeking to revive ties after a rough patch in 2008 stoked by friction between Beijing and EU member states, especially France and Germany, over Tibet.
Tensions peaked late in 2008, when French President Nicholas Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibet Buddhist leader who Beijing calls a "separatist".
France held the six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Union at the time, and China withdrew from a planned summit with the EU.
Relations would not have been so vulnerable if broader ties were more robust. But relations have been sapped by trade imbalances and disputes, slow progress in negotiations for a new treaty to steer relations, and the unwieldiness of dealings between an often opaque China and the EU and its 27 sometimes fractious member states. (Editing by Ken Wills and Dean Yates) ((chris.buckley@thomsonreuters.com; +86-13501014479)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to newsfeedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com))
By Chris Buckley
BEIJING, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Currency tensions and climate change will feature in talks over the weekend and on Monday between Chinese and European Union leaders in Nanjing, capital of east China's Jiangsu province. Here are some questions and answers about the summit and the state of EU-China relations.
WHO'S MEETING WHOM?
The EU will be chiefly represented by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency. On Monday, they will meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
Before the summit, central bank and financial officials from each side will meet over the weekend in Nanjing. European Central Bank Governor Jean-Claude Trichet is due to hold talks with Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED?
Both sides have said the topics in focus are the global economy, climate change and strengthening ties. But China and the EU will bring different priorities to the table.
(1) The economy and trade. For Brussels, the priorities will be pressing China on currency and trade. China has been holding its yuan currency virtually pegged to the dollar even as the dollar has weakened against other key currencies. That has meant the yuan has dropped 15 percent against the euro since March.
That angers Europe, which has been trying to narrow its big trade deficit with China. In 2008, the EU imported Chinese-made goods worth 247.6 billion euros and exported to China goods worth 78.4 billion euros.
European officials also believe a stronger yuan is essential to global rebalancing efforts as the United States consumes less. Without it, they fear that the euro zone will bear most of the burden of a weaker dollar.
China has its own worries about EU anti-dumping actions aimed at its exports, steps Beijing has decried as protectionism.
(2) Climate change. The summit takes place just over a week before negotiations open in Copenhagen on a new international pact to fight climate change.
The EU and China will be key players in those negotiations, and the summit is a last chance to assess and test positions.
On Thursday, China announced goals to cut carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to make each unit of economic value -- by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 compared with levels in 2005. But it also said those were purely domestic commitments and would not be part of any internationally binding commitment.
(3) Market economy status and an EU arms embargo. China may press the EU to recognise it as a "market economy", and end an embargo on arms sales imposed after the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Beijing.
Granting "market economy status" would limit some anti-dumping and other trade protection measures taken by Brussels against Chinese goods.
WHAT WILL THE MEETINGS ACHIEVE?
The summit is unlikely to produce substantive agreements on any of these issues. It will give leaders from both sides an opportunity to set priorities as the EU seeks to lift its diplomatic profile after the Lisbon treaty reforms.
As for Europe's plea for a stronger yuan, the issue that will garner the most interest from global financial markets, leading euro zone officials have said they expect no immediate results from the talks.
HOW GOOD ARE CHINA-EU RELATIONS?
China and the European Union have been seeking to revive ties after a rough patch in 2008 stoked by friction between Beijing and EU member states, especially France and Germany, over Tibet.
Tensions peaked late in 2008, when French President Nicholas Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibet Buddhist leader who Beijing calls a "separatist".
France held the six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Union at the time, and China withdrew from a planned summit with the EU.
Relations would not have been so vulnerable if broader ties were more robust. But relations have been sapped by trade imbalances and disputes, slow progress in negotiations for a new treaty to steer relations, and the unwieldiness of dealings between an often opaque China and the EU and its 27 sometimes fractious member states. (Editing by Ken Wills and Dean Yates) ((chris.buckley@thomsonreuters.com; +86-13501014479)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to newsfeedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com))
Wind turbine noise rules are 'out of date'
Noise level regulations for wind turbines are 11 years old and fail to address the impact of new technology that has allowed larger and louder sites, a pressure group has warned.
By Alastair JamiesonPublished: 9:42AM GMT 26 Nov 2009
Environmental Protection UK say turbines are now so large that the noise generated by turning blades is affecting more nearby residents.
The charity, which campaigns to minimise noise pollution as well as reducing air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases, believes changes in technology are not being reflected in current local government planning guidelines.
The government says it is continuing research into the impact of noise from wind turbines.
Experts working for Environmental Protection UK say the government guidelines on acceptable noise levels for wind turbines were due for revision 11 years ago and there has been little sign that changes in wind turbine technology is reflected in these rules.
They add that this guidance was designed for structures of about 90ft (27m) in height, but some applications for wind farms include turbines that are at least three times higher.
Current guidance assumes background noise at ground level, such as the rustling of leaves, would mask the noise of the blades turning.
However, turbines are becoming so big that they residents will be able to hear the blades above any background noise.
Environmental Protection UK argues the rules need a radical overhaul, otherwise applications for new wind farms are in danger of being rejected.
The charity has also questioned whether smaller renewable energy sites, particularly those in urban areas, are beneficial at all when weighed against the impact of noise on communities.
By Alastair JamiesonPublished: 9:42AM GMT 26 Nov 2009
Environmental Protection UK say turbines are now so large that the noise generated by turning blades is affecting more nearby residents.
The charity, which campaigns to minimise noise pollution as well as reducing air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases, believes changes in technology are not being reflected in current local government planning guidelines.
The government says it is continuing research into the impact of noise from wind turbines.
Experts working for Environmental Protection UK say the government guidelines on acceptable noise levels for wind turbines were due for revision 11 years ago and there has been little sign that changes in wind turbine technology is reflected in these rules.
They add that this guidance was designed for structures of about 90ft (27m) in height, but some applications for wind farms include turbines that are at least three times higher.
Current guidance assumes background noise at ground level, such as the rustling of leaves, would mask the noise of the blades turning.
However, turbines are becoming so big that they residents will be able to hear the blades above any background noise.
Environmental Protection UK argues the rules need a radical overhaul, otherwise applications for new wind farms are in danger of being rejected.
The charity has also questioned whether smaller renewable energy sites, particularly those in urban areas, are beneficial at all when weighed against the impact of noise on communities.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Barack Obama to attend Copenhagen climate summit
UN and campaign groups welcome Obama's decision, but critics say 'right city, wrong date'
John Vidal and David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 November 2009 18.38 GMT
President Barack Obama will travel to Copenhagen next month for the United Nations climate summit with a new offer to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by 17% on 2005 figures by 2020.
But critics said the long-awaited White House initiative would do little to ensure a successful outcome to the talks, and that it came at the wrong time in the negotiations.
Obama will travel to Copenhagen on 10 December, on his way to collect the Nobel peace prize in Oslo the next day. But the White House gave no indication that the president was prepared to return to the city when Gordon Brown and 60 or more world leaders fly in to add impetus to the final deal one week later on 18 December - the last day of the talks.
The Observer revealed this week that the US administration was poised to announce a specific figure for cuts ahead of the Copenhagen talks.
Obama's commitment to attend the talks was welcomed by the UN and many environment groups but dismissed by others as a photo opportunity designed to upstage the other 60 world leaders.
"I think it's critical that President Obama attend the climate change summit in Copenhagen. We have figures from all industrialised countries, with the exception of the United States. This is the first thing we need, and this is critical," said Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief.
Lord Stern, the former head of the UK Government Economic Service and author of the influential Stern review on the economics of climate change, said: "It is important that President Obama and all the leaders of the major nations attend the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen next month. Only leaders can take the decisions on the broad range of issues, such as finance, technology and trade, that are necessary to reach a strong framework agreement on climate change. Strong action and inspirational leadership will be required in Copenhagen."
But others dismissed Obama's appearance. "The Copenhagen climate summit is not about a photo opportunity, it's about getting a global agreement to stop climate chaos," said a Greenpeace international spokesperson. "President Obama needs to be there at the same time as all the other world leaders. This is when he is needed to get the right agreement. It's the right city, but the wrong date. It seems that he's just not taking this issue seriously."
"The new US offer to cut emissions 17% on 2005 figures equates to 6% at 1990 levels and will not help the climate summit reach a strong deal to stop climate chaos," Greenpeace added. The 17% figure is the same as the emission cut in energy legislation passed by the US House of Representatives earlier this year.
By comparison, the EU has pledged to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 on 1990 levels – or 30% if there is a global deal.
The White House also laid out possible future emissions cuts: 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050, but these are all on 2005 levels. The figures are drawn from pledges in existing planned US domestic cap and trade legislation.
Observers close to the negotiations questioned whether the US target for 2020 would be enough to draw large developing nations such as China into a global deal. The US may have to promise massive financial assistance as a sweetener, they said. The White House statement did not mention finance.
The US move comescomes ahead of a press conference scheduled for tomorrow morning in Beijing, where Chinese officials are expected to announce China's planned target to reduce the energy intensity of its economy by 2020, perhaps by 40-45%.
Hu Jintao, president of China, had been expected to announce the figure at a high-level summit in New York in September, but instead pledged only a cut by a "notable margin".
US officials have been anxious about the timing of the Chinese announcement, which follows significant pledges to reduce emissions from nations such as Brazil, Russia and South Korea in recent weeks.
Obama had previously said he would only attend the conference if negotiators were "on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over the edge".
Others urged Obama to prepare to return to Copenhagen. "If his presence during the latter days of the meeting becomes necessary to secure the right commitments, we hope the president will be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world's leaders during the final stages of the negotiations," said WWF-US climate programme director, Keya Chatterjee.
De Boer acknowledged, however, that industrialised countries' emission cut pledges, estimated to total between 16 and 23%, fall far short of what scientists say is needed to head off serious impacts from global warming. Scientists say that reductions of between 25-40% are necessary compared with a 1990 baseline.
The UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, confirmed he would be at the Copenhagen talks earlier this month, along with other world leaders including the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd.
John Vidal and David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 November 2009 18.38 GMT
President Barack Obama will travel to Copenhagen next month for the United Nations climate summit with a new offer to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by 17% on 2005 figures by 2020.
But critics said the long-awaited White House initiative would do little to ensure a successful outcome to the talks, and that it came at the wrong time in the negotiations.
Obama will travel to Copenhagen on 10 December, on his way to collect the Nobel peace prize in Oslo the next day. But the White House gave no indication that the president was prepared to return to the city when Gordon Brown and 60 or more world leaders fly in to add impetus to the final deal one week later on 18 December - the last day of the talks.
The Observer revealed this week that the US administration was poised to announce a specific figure for cuts ahead of the Copenhagen talks.
Obama's commitment to attend the talks was welcomed by the UN and many environment groups but dismissed by others as a photo opportunity designed to upstage the other 60 world leaders.
"I think it's critical that President Obama attend the climate change summit in Copenhagen. We have figures from all industrialised countries, with the exception of the United States. This is the first thing we need, and this is critical," said Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief.
Lord Stern, the former head of the UK Government Economic Service and author of the influential Stern review on the economics of climate change, said: "It is important that President Obama and all the leaders of the major nations attend the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen next month. Only leaders can take the decisions on the broad range of issues, such as finance, technology and trade, that are necessary to reach a strong framework agreement on climate change. Strong action and inspirational leadership will be required in Copenhagen."
But others dismissed Obama's appearance. "The Copenhagen climate summit is not about a photo opportunity, it's about getting a global agreement to stop climate chaos," said a Greenpeace international spokesperson. "President Obama needs to be there at the same time as all the other world leaders. This is when he is needed to get the right agreement. It's the right city, but the wrong date. It seems that he's just not taking this issue seriously."
"The new US offer to cut emissions 17% on 2005 figures equates to 6% at 1990 levels and will not help the climate summit reach a strong deal to stop climate chaos," Greenpeace added. The 17% figure is the same as the emission cut in energy legislation passed by the US House of Representatives earlier this year.
By comparison, the EU has pledged to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 on 1990 levels – or 30% if there is a global deal.
The White House also laid out possible future emissions cuts: 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050, but these are all on 2005 levels. The figures are drawn from pledges in existing planned US domestic cap and trade legislation.
Observers close to the negotiations questioned whether the US target for 2020 would be enough to draw large developing nations such as China into a global deal. The US may have to promise massive financial assistance as a sweetener, they said. The White House statement did not mention finance.
The US move comescomes ahead of a press conference scheduled for tomorrow morning in Beijing, where Chinese officials are expected to announce China's planned target to reduce the energy intensity of its economy by 2020, perhaps by 40-45%.
Hu Jintao, president of China, had been expected to announce the figure at a high-level summit in New York in September, but instead pledged only a cut by a "notable margin".
US officials have been anxious about the timing of the Chinese announcement, which follows significant pledges to reduce emissions from nations such as Brazil, Russia and South Korea in recent weeks.
Obama had previously said he would only attend the conference if negotiators were "on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over the edge".
Others urged Obama to prepare to return to Copenhagen. "If his presence during the latter days of the meeting becomes necessary to secure the right commitments, we hope the president will be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world's leaders during the final stages of the negotiations," said WWF-US climate programme director, Keya Chatterjee.
De Boer acknowledged, however, that industrialised countries' emission cut pledges, estimated to total between 16 and 23%, fall far short of what scientists say is needed to head off serious impacts from global warming. Scientists say that reductions of between 25-40% are necessary compared with a 1990 baseline.
The UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, confirmed he would be at the Copenhagen talks earlier this month, along with other world leaders including the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
